1.Taddeo, M. & Floridi, L. Regulate artificial intelligence to avert cyber arms race. Nature 556(7701), 296–298 (2018).ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.Armstrong, S., Bostrom, N. & Shulman, C. Racing to the precipice: A model of artificial intelligence development. AI Soc. 31(2), 201–206 (2016).
Google Scholar
3.Cave, S. & ÓhÉigeartaigh, S. An AI race for strategic advantage: rhetoric and risks. In AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics and Society 36–40, (2018).4.Future of Life Institute. Autonomous Weapons: An Open Letter from AI & Robotics Researchers (Technical report, Future of Life Institute, 2015).5.Future of Life Institute. Lethal autonomous weapons pledge. https://futureoflife.org/lethal-autonomous-weapons-pledge/, (2019).6.Brooks, R. The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI, (2017). https://rodneybrooks.com/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-predicting-the-future-of-ai/; Online posted 7-September-2017.7.Declaration, Montreal. The montreal declaration for the responsible development of artificial intelligence launched. https://www.canasean.com/the-montreal-declaration-for-the-responsible-development-of-artificial-intelligence-launched/, (2018).8.Steels, L. & Lopez de Mantaras, R. The barcelona declaration for the proper development and usage of artificial intelligence in Europe. AI Commun. (Preprint):1–10, (2018).9.Russell, S., Hauert, S., Altman, R. & Veloso, M. Ethics of artificial intelligence. Nature 521(7553), 415–416 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
10.Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
11.European Commission. White paper on Artificial Intelligence – An European approach to excellence and trust (Technical report, European Commission, 2020).12.Perc, M., Ozer, M. & Hojnik, J. Social and juristic challenges of artificial intelligence. Palgrave Commun. 5(1), 1–7 (2019).
Google Scholar
13.Sotala, K. & Yampolskiy, R. V. Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: A survey. Physica Scripta 90(1), 018001 (2014).ADS
Google Scholar
14.Pamlin, D. & Armstrong, S. Global Challenges: 12 Risks that Threaten Human Civilization (Global Challenges Foundation, 2015).
Google Scholar
15.O’neil, C. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown (2016).16.Armstrong, S., Sotala, K. & Ó hÉigeartaigh, S. The errors, insights and lessons of famous AI predictions-and what they mean for the future. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 26(3), 317–342 (2014).
Google Scholar
17.Collingridge, D. The Social Control of Technology (St. Martin’s Press, 1980).
Google Scholar
18.Han, T. A., Pereira, L. M., Santos, F. C. & Lenaerts, T. To regulate or not: A social dynamics analysis of an idealised AI race. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 69, 881–921 (2020).MathSciNet
MATH
Google Scholar
19.Santos, F. C., Pacheco, J. M. & Lenaerts, T. Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103(9), 3490–3494 (2006).ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
20.Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E. & Nowak, M. A. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature 441(7092), 502–505 (2006).ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
21.Santos, F. C., Santos, M. D. & Pacheco, J. M. Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games. Nature 454, 214–216 (2008).ADS
Google Scholar
22.Perc, M. et al. Statistical physics of human cooperation. Phys. Rep. 687, 1–51 (2017).ADS
MathSciNet
MATH
Google Scholar
23.Chen, X., Sasaki, T., Brännström, Å. & Dieckmann, U. First carrot, then stick: How the adaptive hybridization of incentives promotes cooperation. J. R. Soc. Interface 12(102), 20140935 (2015).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
24.Perc, M. & Szolnoki, A. Coevolutionary games—A mini review. BioSystems 99(2), 109–125 (2010).PubMed
Google Scholar
25.Page, K. M., Nowak, M. A. & Sigmund, K. The spatial ultimatum game. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 267(1458), 2177–2182 (2000).CAS
Google Scholar
26.Szolnoki, A., Perc, M. & Szabó, G. Defense mechanisms of empathetic players in the spatial ultimatum game. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(7), 078701 (2012).ADS
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.Te, W., Feng, F., Zhang, Y. & Wang, L. Adaptive role switching promotes fairness in networked ultimatum game. Sci. Rep. 3, 1550 (2013).
Google Scholar
28.Santos, F. P., Pacheco, J. M., Paiva, A. & Santos, F. C. Structural power and the evolution of collective fairness in social networks. PLoS ONE 12(4), e0175687 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
29.Cimpeanu, T., Perret, C. & Han, T. A. Cost-efficient interventions for promoting fairness in the ultimatum game. Knowl. Based Syst. 233, 107545 (2021).
Google Scholar
30.Kumar, A., Capraro, V. & Perc, M. The evolution of trust and trustworthiness. J. R. Soc. Interface 17(169), 20200491 (2020).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
31.Schilling, M. A. & Phelps, C. C. Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Manag. Sci. 53(7), 1113–1126 (2007).MATH
Google Scholar
32.Newman, M. E. J. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101(suppl 1), 5200–5205 (2004).ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
33.Barabasi, A.-L. Linked-how Everything is Connected to Everything Else and what it Means F (Perseus Books Group, 2014).
Google Scholar
34.Ahuja, G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Adm. Sci. Q. 45(3), 425–455 (2000).
Google Scholar
35.Shipilov, A. & Gawer, A. Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14(1), 92–121 (2020).
Google Scholar
36.Barabási, A.-L. & Albert, R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439), 509–512 (1999).ADS
MathSciNet
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
37.Santos, F. C., Pacheco, J. M. & Lenaerts, T. Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 3490–3494 (2006).ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
38.Szabó, G. & Fáth, G. Evolutionary games on graphs. Phys. Rep. 446(4–6), 97–216 (2007).ADS
MathSciNet
Google Scholar
39.Pastor-Satorras, R. & Vespignani, A. Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(14), 3200 (2001).ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
40.Pacheco, J. M. & Santos, F. C. The messianic effect of pathological altruism. Pathological Altruism. pp. 300–310. (New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press, 2012).
Google Scholar
41.Santos, F. P., Pacheco, J. M., Paiva, A. & Santos, F. C. Evolution of collective fairness in hybrid populations of humans and agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33, 6146–6153, (2019).42.Paiva, A., Santos, F., & Santos, F. Engineering pro-sociality with autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 32, (2018).43.Cardillo, A. & Masuda, N. Critical mass effect in evolutionary games triggered by zealots. Phys. Rev. Res. 2(2), 023305 (2020).CAS
Google Scholar
44.Scherer, M. U. Regulating artificial intelligence systems: Risks, challenges, competencies, and strategies. SSRN Electron. J. 29, 353 (2015).
Google Scholar
45.McKinney, S. M. et al. International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577(7788), 89–94 (2020).ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
46.Rolnick, D. et al. Tackling climate change with machine learning, (2019). Preprint available at arXiv:1906.05433.47.Ranjbar-Sahraei, B., Bou Ammar, H., Bloembergen, D., Tuyls, K., & Weiss, G. Evolution of cooperation in arbitrary complex networks. In AAMAS’2014, 677–684, (2014).48.Denicolò, V. & Franzoni, L. A. On the winner-take-all principle in innovation races. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 8(5), 1133–1158 (2010).
Google Scholar
49.Campart, S. & Pfister, E. Technological races and stock market value: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 23(3), 215–238 (2014).
Google Scholar
50.Lemley, M. The myth of the sole inventor. Mich. Law Rev. 110, 709–760 (2012).
Google Scholar
51.Abbott, F. M., Dukes, M. N. G. & Dukes, G. Global Pharmaceutical Policy: Ensuring Medicines for Tomorrow’s World (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009).
Google Scholar
52.Burrell, R. & Kelly, C. The covid-19 pandemic and the challenge for innovation policy. Available at SSRN 3576481, (2020).53.Andrews, T. M., Delton, A. W. & Kline, R. High-risk high-reward investments to mitigate climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8(10), 890–894 (2018).ADS
Google Scholar
54.Baum, S. D. On the promotion of safe and socially beneficial artificial intelligence. AI Soc. 32(4), 543–551 (2017).
Google Scholar
55.Geist, E. M. It’s already too late to stop the AI arms race: We must manage it instead. Bull. Atom. Sci. 72(5), 318–321 (2016).
Google Scholar
56.Shulman, C. & Armstrong, S. Arms control and intelligence explosions. In 7th European Conference on Computing and Philosophy (ECAP), Bellaterra, Spain, July, 2–4, (2009).57.Vinuesa, R. et al. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the sustainable development goals. Nat. Commun. 11(233), 1–10 (2020).
Google Scholar
58.Askell, A., Brundage, M., & Hadfield, G. The Role of Cooperation in Responsible AI Development. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.04534, (2019).59.Han, T. A., Pereira, L. M., & Lenaerts, T. Modelling and influencing the AI binding war: a research agenda. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM conference AI, Ethics and Society, 5–11, (2019).60.Han, T. A., Pereira, L. M., Lenaerts, T. & Santos, F. C. Mediating artificial intelligence developments through negative and positive incentives. PLoS ONE 16(1), e0244592 (2021).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
61.Han, T. A., Lenaerts, T., Santos, F. C., & Pereira, L. M. Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in AI development. Technology in Society (In Press), (2022).62.Perc, M., Gómez-Gardenes, J., Szolnoki, A., Floría, L. M. & Moreno, Y. Evolutionary dynamics of group interactions on structured populations: A review. J. R. Soc. Interface 10(80), 20120997 (2013).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
63.Han, T. A. Lynch, S., Tran-Thanh, L. & Santos, F. C. Fostering cooperation in structured populations through local and global interference strategies. In IJCAI-ECAI’2018, 289–295, (2018).64.Raghunandan, M. A. & Subramanian, C. A. Sustaining cooperation on networks: an analytical study based on evolutionary game theory. In AAMAS, Vol. 12, 913–920 (Citeseer, 2012).65.Perc, M. The social physics collective. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–3 (2019).CAS
Google Scholar
66.Wilder, B., Immorlica, N., Rice, E., & Tambe, M.. Maximizing influence in an unknown social network. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18), (2018).67.Bloembergen, D., Sahraei, B. R., Bou-Ammar, H., Tuyls, K. & Weiss, G. Influencing social networks: an optimal control study. In ECAI, Vol. 14, 105–110, (2014).68.Cimpeanu, T., Han, T. A., & Santos, F. C. Exogenous rewards for promoting cooperation in scale-free networks. In Artificial Life Conference Proceedings, 316–323 (MIT Press, 2019).69.Santos, F. C. & Pacheco, J. M. Risk of collective failure provides an escape from the tragedy of the commons. PNAS 108(26), 10421–10425 (2011).ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
70.Pacheco, J. M., Traulsen, A. & Nowak, M. A. Coevolution of strategy and structure in complex networks with dynamical linking. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 258103 (2006).ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
71.Tkadlec, J., Pavlogiannis, A., Chatterjee, K. & Nowak, M. A. Fast and strong amplifiers of natural selection. Nat. Commun. 12(1), 1–6 (2021).
Google Scholar
72.Santos, F. C. & Pacheco, J. M. A new route to the evolution of cooperation. J. Evol. Biol. 19(3), 726–733 (2006).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
73.Traulsen, A., Nowak, M. A. & Pacheco, J. M. Stochastic dynamics of invasion and fixation. Phys. Rev. E 74, 11909 (2006).ADS
Google Scholar
74.Santos, F. C., Pinheiro, F. L., Lenaerts, T. & Pacheco, J. M. The role of diversity in the evolution of cooperation. J. Theor. Biol. 299, 88–96 (2012).ADS
MathSciNet
PubMed
Google Scholar
75.Zisis, I., Di Guida, S., Han, T. A., Kirchsteiger, G. & Lenaerts, T. Generosity motivated by acceptance—Evolutionary analysis of an anticipation games. Sci. Rep. 5(18076), 1–11 (2015).
Google Scholar
76.Rand, D. G., Tarnita, C. E., Ohtsuki, H. & Nowak, M. A. Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous ultimatum game. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 2581–2586 (2013).ADS
MathSciNet
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
77.Grujić, J. & Lenaerts, T. Do people imitate when making decisions? Evidence from a spatial prisoner’s dilemma experiment. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7(7), 200618 (2020).ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
78.Pinheiro, F. L., Santos, F. C. & Pacheco, J. M. How selection pressure changes the nature of social dilemmas in structured populations. New J. Phys. 14(7), 073035 (2012).ADS
Google Scholar
79.Ohtsuki, H., Nowak, M. A. & Pacheco, J. M. Breaking the symmetry between interaction and replacement in evolutionary dynamics on graphs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98(10), 108106 (2007).ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
80.Dorogovtsev, S. Complex Networks (Oxford University Press, 2010).MATH
Google Scholar
81.Newman, M. E. J. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev. 45(2), 167–256 (2003).ADS
MathSciNet
MATH
Google Scholar
82.Albert, R. & Barabási, A.-L. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 47–97 (2002).ADS
MathSciNet
MATH
Google Scholar
83.Dorogovtsev, S. N., Mendes, J. F. F. & Samukhin, A. N. Size-dependent degree distribution of a scale-free growing network. Phys. Rev. E 63(6), 062101 (2001).ADS
CAS
Google Scholar
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05729-3
